>Microsoft still makes and sells 32-bit versions of Windows
>many consumer Linux distributions still offer 32-bit versions on their website
When will 32-bit finally die? Apple killed off 32-bit support back in October 2012 when they released OS X Lion, which was exclusively 64-bit, and iOS is making that transition now beginning with iOS 7 and the 64-bit iPhone 5s.
The vast majority of computers being sold today, even the cheapest computers like the $35 Raspberry Pi 3 are 64-bit. When will the rest of the industry join Apple and finally cut down that outdated technology for good? It's time.
>what is legacy
>>53372719
>The vast majority of computers being sold today is 64 bit.
I doubt that, I think you are vastly under estimating the embedded market.
I doubt my microwave is 64 bit, nor my technodildo.
>>53372753
"legacy" is the reason Windows is as bloated as it is today.
>>53372753
Legacy apps can still run due to wow64
I finally found a thread where I can ask the question - why was the Nintendo 64, 64-bit?
>>53372779
this
Windows could be so much better if the average end consumer didn't care about legacy support.
>>53372811
the console "bit race" was a huge reason
Sega did most of the pushing for this
>>53372719
>When will 32-bit finally die?
When the last 32-bit chip is no longer functional, when all the vital software that is 32-bit has been updated or replaced, when every old game that anyone might want to play again has been rewritten to be 64-bit.
In other words, fucking never.
>>53372867
32-bit emulators are a thing
>>53372906
Maybe so, but 32-bit isn't going away any time soon.
>When will 32-bit finally die?
6:28:15 on February 7, 2106, mark your calendar
>>53372719
Linux 64bit is still beta stage
>>53372784
wow64 consisting of lots of 32bit libraries and depends on 32bit support from the processor
aka, the opposite of killing 32bit
>>53372779
this
>>53372811
around that time (early 90's) advertising for video game consoles were all about "mah bits"
so everyone knew;
- 16bits was better than 8bits
- 32bits was better than 16bits
so surely, 64bits will be better than 32bits, right?
that was pretty much the reason, most n64 games didn't even really use any 64bit features
>>53374652
linux has supported AMD64 since before the first AMD64-capable cpu came out
>>53372811
The reasons the other's stated + 3D computer graphics was still in its infancy, they thought they needed more precision than they did.
>>53374652
>Linux 64bit is still beta stage
Er, what? By what possible reasoning could you think that to be the case?
>>53375347
they made several backwards decisions with the N64
to quote myself;
https://rbt.asia/g/thread/S50357309#p50366290
>>53375330
god i used to think the PS2 was 128bits
>>53375360
i did for a while, too
thankfully by the end of the 90's people started to understand that 32bit really was 'enough'
>>53372906
>break shit for no reason
>lol u can just emulate
32bit works just fine, should they end support for it because your gayming rig can do better?
>>53375330
>>53372811
ps. check out the atari jaguar tv ad if you haven't seen it
it's a rather extreme case, the ad literally just says "our console is 64bit, the others aren't, so that makes ours better"
the jaguar wasn't even 64bit
>>53374652
This is what BestBuy Geek Squad actually believes.
Windows 10 will probably be the last windows with a 32bit release. There's no pure x86-32 processors left and the last time an x86-32 processor was released was sometime in 2011 which is now 5 years ago. In 4-6 years when the next release of windows comes the last x86-32 processor will probably be at least 9 years old and that should be too insignificant to warrant a port.
64bit Windows will probably never get rid of WOW64 though.
>>53376679
Eh wait I lied I forgot about Intel's Quark CPUs which were released in 2014
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Quark
Microsoft could always make a windows embedded release for those though.
>>53372719
you do know that there are other kinds of computers than PCs ?
>>53376679
>2011 [...] is now 5 years ago
Help
>>53376709
Ok, what kind of computers are there out there besides personal computers and why are they still clinging to 32 bit?
>>53376679
wait, are we only talking about x86 cpus ?
>>53376730
my router.
>>53376750
Yeah, Windows for 32bit ARM isn't going away anytime soon. Too many new devices out there that it would be impossible to force people off of it.
Bullshit enterprise applications that fuckchop's sysadmins never replace.
32bit is a thing becaue of low cost netbooks and laptops. 64 it requires much more ram just to run the OS. I have a cheap as fuck netbook with 64 bit hardware yet running 32 bit software for this reason.
>>53376766
why are you talking about windows now ? i thought the thread was about cpus..
>>53376777
>64 it requires much more ram just to run the OS
citation ? i don't really see any reason why a 64bit OS would require more ram than a 32bit OS.
>>53372719
64bit address space is bad for phones right now.
It provide no benefits (no phones with over 4GB RAM but even if there was, PAE is supported on x86 and LPAE on ARM for upto 32GB)
But it does use more memory, since you have store twice as much pointer data.
This is bad because it not only wastes memory, but on a mobile device it's also wasting power refreshing data is ram that didn't even need to exist.
>>53376796
The opening sentence of the OP is literally
>>Microsoft still makes and sells 32-bit versions of Windows
>>53376826
and the second linux, the third about ios.. your point is ?
>>53376832
I was replied to OP's statement about Windows. I stated that Microsoft probably wont make another 32bit windows after windows 10. I don't see where you're getting tripped up no one else seems to have been confused from what I can tell.
Only reason to use 32-bit is if you have 4 GB RAM or less and don't want to waste any of it. As soon as 6 GB is standard on even the cheapest devices, 32-bit will be gone.
>>53376807
I bought a lenovo 100s ideapad with the intention of putting linux on it. but with a 64bit chip it runs 32bit uefi and no BIOS compatability mode. Didn't know what the fuck that was so looked into it, apparently it's a pain in the ass to get linux going with all that, so I looked into it wondering why the fuck they would do that and apparently it's for the reasons I already said. I'll try find the article or whatever it was.
like >>53376819 says, small laptops and phones don't have the need for an OS that use more ram, especially when ram is scarce to start with.
>>53376807
Its common knowledge
>>53375360
well they put a weird superscalar mips capable of simd in it, so you could consider it a "128bit" console I guess
>>53376856
because you are the only one here talking about x86 and windows
>>53372719
I'm poor and teaching myself few courses on a 32bit machine that is revived with few more GBs of RAM,SSD and Linux. 32bit is old but still usable.
>>53376730
literally everything except pcs?
>>53376807
Pointers are twice as big, so any struct containing pointers will become larger.
>>53376898
Is there a windows for 64bit ARM that I'm not aware of?
>>53376919
true, but that's an insignificant amount and doesn't really make it using "much more ram". people using multiple integers for flags where they could use just ine integer and setting bits probably waste 10times the amount of ram.
>>53375330
nice coleco chameleon
>>53372719
Even Intel still makes 32 bit CPUs.
The majority of the low end 64 bit CPUs don't take advantage of the platform being 64 bit. Literally, it's only so you don't have to recompile your desktop code.
>>53376948
i have no idea, why does that even matter ?
>>53377004
Because if it doesn't exist then trying to migrate to 64bit ARM would be rather difficult.
>>53377035
Wuhh? You're on crack now, right?
>>53375400
http://www.metalstuff.com/area64/jaguar/64bits.html
>the jaguar wasn't even 64 bit
So... who is right?
>>53376964
Aren't a lot of embedded processors in MicroSD cards and USB cards 32-bit?
>>53376953
You will use on average 25% more RAM with 64-bit over 32-bit. If you only run 32-bit programs on your 64-bit OS you will lose about 200 MB.
>>53377035
wth are you even talking about. you do know that there are other operating systems in this world than windows, and other architectures than x86 and arm ?
>>53377093
do you have any citations for that claim ?
and what kind of black magic is my 64bit netbook running 64bit linux using 56mb ram using ?
>>53377102
But OP was specifically referring to Windows which is what I was replying to. Follow the trail of replies.
>>53372719
> When will 32-bit finally die?
Never. VIA still make those 32bit CPUs, right?
>>53377123
I have tested two netbooks with 2 GB RAM, one is on 32-bit Win 10 and the other 64-bit Win 10. When I said 200 MB I meant in context of modern OS that eats RAM for breakfast (~500 MB on boot)
>>53377129
op was "specifically referring to" windows, linux, osx and ios
the most important linux distributions support ~8-10 different architecturs, and, believe it or not, they are not just arm and x86
>>53377146
are you just the same guy?
>>53376856
>>53377157
Nope. I realized we're going in circles, so I deleted my reply.
>>53377154
to be fair, windows was always fucked up. a lot of people believed the "you cant use more than 4gb ram on a 32bit system" bullshit.
>>53377176
Most people didn't know about PAE/NX though.
>>53377079
I think it was two 32 bit CPUs.
>>53377080
If they're storage, they're storage. There's a bit width for the transfer, but that doesn't mean it only works with 32 bit CPUs or something.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Digital
Scroll down to transfer modes.
>>53377079
Hilariously all those different chips resulted in games that looked worse than SNES SuperFX games because you had to be some sort of multicore multiprocessor genius to work with it. Was worse than the Saturn.
>>53372784
32 bit Windows includes 16 bit libraries. A lot of business applications still use them.
>>53377238
http://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=3554
Fun stuff here.
>>53376770
They don't replace the applications because finance won't let them.
>>53377258
Why did they kill 16 bit support in 64 bit windows?
>>53377333
Beacuse CPU cannot operate in 64bit mode and 16bit mode at the same time.
>>53377345
I'm pretty sure most 64bit CPUs are capable of running DOSBOX
>>53377360
DOSBOX is an emulator.
>>53377383
And?
Seamlessly emulate 16bit applications/libraries. You have the CPU power
>>53372719
>make every pointer take 2 times as much space
No thanks.
>>53377401
>And?
And no one wants man-hours wasted writing an emulator no one will use.
>>53377277
Fuck you for stealing my free time this morning. BBL, reading.
Thanks anon
>>53377258
>32 bit Windows includes 16 bit libraries. A lot of business applications still use them.
Well they should get with the times. 1992 was 24 years ago. Windows 3.1 is long gone.
>>53377401
you can run 16bit windows applications in 64bit linux via wine, microsoft was just being lazy
>>53378111
Not quite that simple where business is concerned. In some cases, updating vital software is more trouble than it's worth, if not actually impossible.
